Lens of Truth Writes "Welcome back everyone and Happy Easter! Today the Easter Bunny has brought us a special gift, he wanted to see how the “best of the best” next generation FPS compare to one another when side by side. Although we don’t have the exact specifications running Battlefield 4 we can assume its top of the line hardware. So, with that being said, we want to hear from you in the comments section on how you think the PlayStation 4, graphics, HDR lighting and performance is compared to top end PC’s. Let us say this, its going to be very interesting “Rabbit” when the system finally hits this fall.. Let the “Battle” begin!"

Also there's an Easter Egg somewhere in the post linking to a side by side video of the PlayStation 4 and PC Unreal Engine 4: Tech Demo.. I found it and its really worth checking out.

So the obvious and biggest difference is the lighting, also the textures are bit lower rez in certain places and the particles are a bit more muted in the PS4 version. Man Epic did a sh*t job with UE4 for consoles. But what do you expect from an engine that's meant for multiplat development. It'll never tap the true power of the PS4's hardware.

The xbox version will fair far worse if the rumors are true about the weaker specs.

the quality of the images might not be the greatest, but watch the trailer they showed again. Im highlighting the parts that are playable. https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Im not even going to pick which game I think looks better, but fair is fair. And at the end, its just a cod style barely playable section thats almost a cutscene. I already know artists can make those look good. battlefield 4 looks really similar to battlefield 3 in my eyes, but battlefield 3 looks and plays great.

but the playing fields aren't remotely level. Let's wait until we get some ps4 footage of BF4 before we start comparing. Comparing locked in hardware to something only 5% of the PC gaming market owns is a little biased if you ask me.

Yeah, but when you compare pics of two games running on different engines that happen to have similar scnearios, weponry, lighting and what not, you at least get a good comparison of how the different engines deal with those and, if both indeed aim for the same final look, you can say who did the best job in achieving, i.e., realistic graphics if we were comparing modern militar shooters (COD, BF, Arma, Op. Flashpoint, Rainbow Six, the very Socom - as in the image -, the list could go on and on).

Here the only thing in common really is the genre, they are both first person shooters, so meybe you could compare some gameplay elements, physics, etc... But there's nothing there to make a graphical comparison. Even if you get two similar scenarios (like the overview of the city, or just staring down at your own gun), they are not necessarily aiming for the same final look, point in case BF want to be realistic while KZ (or Halo, Gears, Resistance, Metro, Crysis, Unreal Tournament, etc) have a much more stylized graphics (as you would expect in a completelly fictional setting). It's just like comparing art styles, in the end any judgement will be highly subjetive.

Now if we had both games released we could indeed make a technical comparison of graphical effects and performance, analyse and pick each engines strong points or limitations, but that not just some side by side look at pictures as the final visual doesn't necessarily represent technical prowess, it would be much more technical talk and, probably, still wouldn't mean which look best or worst.

This is the dumbest comparison I have ever seen first of all BF4 IS PRE ALPHA (AKA NOT REAL GAMEPLAY)and killzone is running off of early dev kits (no where near using PS4 real power). To top it all off I really believe killzon was originally a ps3 tital,the set peices look like it all day.I am waiting to see what games my PS4 WILL ENTERTAIN me with in 2014/15 now thats when they begin emulating the spu from the cell chip on the gpgpu and with all that gddr5 ram- all I CAN SAY DEVELOPERS DONT LET XBOX 7SHITTY HOLD YOU BACK- THE SKY IS THE LIMIT!!!LLLLLOOOOLLLLL!!!!!

BF4 looks like BF3 i couldnt tell the difference, but with KZSF i saw a big difference and love the new art work they have and the colors OMG!!! orgasim. its not KZ4 but its still good. BF4 will still be good cuz i like battle field but trying to compare it to the sony's halo is stupid cuz KZ always wins as best looking FPS. when KZ2 and 3 came out they got best graphics of the year.

Killzone looks last gen compared to Battlefield 4. And not to mention that the maps are not only bigger but the destruction is incredible and that requires an insane amount of calculations. But Battlefield was running on a $900 dual GPU after all... They can't be compared.

Yeah.., WishingW3L is totally right, there no way console will be comparable to thousand dollars rig, to the people who say shadowfall is better, shame on you!!, just give it up PS fans, it's a natural order, where the rich stand above the poor.., well.., sucks to be you poor console gamer.., :D LMAO!!!

regard. PC gamer representative

Edit, please don't bubble me down, i'm just trying to be as asshole as possible as a PC "guy" cause every body else does the same, if you know what I mean..

I own a $2,000 gaming pc and play my ps3 while my PC catches dust. Alot of the best game designers and developers work for sony, seriously! I will admit there are games I wish were on consoles, like shogun 2, but i'm not sure the ps3 or xbox 360 have enough ram to handle it, I love it on PC though. But I haven't played a game that looked that much better, if any, than Uncharted 3. Just imagine what sony's developers will be able to do with the PS4! I am far more excited for PS4 games and graphics then for PC's.

@Scott182 - I got a $2000 gaming PC too. I bought it in 1991, It's called an AMIGA 500..maybe you heard of it. It doesn't look as good as a PS3 either. Get my drift?! Saying you have a $2000 is meaning less if it's junk old hardware. Its whats inside that matters, not the purchase price!!!

I hear ya tee bag, I bought it a couple years ago.... Still plays games full power. That's really not the point i'm going for anyways. Of course good PC's have better hardware and more power than consoles. It's the developers and the games they make that matter to me, look at uncharted 3 for instance. I know the raw power isn't there for the ps3 like it is for good PC's, but look what naughty dog made with that game. I'm not trying to be biased for playstation, I just get more excited for playstation games...

The true answer / response is a happy medium between the both of your comments.

There's no way Killzone can look better than that Battlefield 4 trailer, from a RAW graphical standpoint. It's running on vastly superior that's at least 4x as powerful as the PS4 (my guess is at least i5-3750k CPU, HD 7990 GPU confirmed, and 32GB of RAM). The PS4 is a great console spec. wise (mid range PC, likely to be sold at a low-end price which is what PC gamers were upset about), but it can't compete with PC specs. like that (aka maxed PC specs.).

The lighting in BF4 is better, The character models faces were better in BF4, the environments are much bigger (based on the sections shown from both games), effects (smoke, fire, particles) look significantly better in Battlefield (and also proven in the UE4 comparison), and the destruction in Battlefield is in a whole other league.

Now it's time to praise Killzone. The fact is many people think of Killzone as a corridor shooter, and it was on PS3 for the most part, but the KZ4 demo all took place in a large open area. It wasn't a room that loaded the work as you progressed, but a HUGE Foyer that leads to a set piece moment. The tessellation was great, and arguably better than what was shown in BF4, the weapon models look much more detailed than BF4 (especially compared to the shotgun), the character models "In Action" are on par with BF4 if not better, and Killzone has a better artstyle IMO.

That being said KZ4 is using smoke and mirrors to achieve what BF4 is doing off RAW Power. A better comparison would be Killzone's E3 demo when the company has had time to polish up the loose ends and graphics since the game is technically finished. It will also allow Guerilla to use more of the systems 8GB of RAM compared to the 1.5GB - 4GB they maximum that had for the first reveal which would improve some aspect of the game. Killzone is also a launch title for new hardware vs. PC gaming which has been established for decades.

So while BF4 looks better, there are a lot of things that Killzone has going against that can easily be addressed before it's launch (2x more RAM, dedicated graphics development time, and improved understanding of PS4 architecture). Also a fair comparison would be BF4 running on PC hardware comparable to the PS4 (HD 7850 / 7870) or on the PS4 itself in which case Killzone is likely to give it a serious run for it money via PC hardware, and stomp it on the PS4.

I will say this; however, Killzone looks like a PS4 game, but it doesn't look like a huge evolution over Killzone 3 gameplay-wise based on that small demo.

BF4 looks like another BF as well, but the sheer amount of horsepower the game is pushing out through Frostbite Engine 3 from huge maps, multiple vehicles to freely drive, insane amounts of destructible environments, all while looking as great as it does is the first step to evolving the FPS. Now if only they could nail the story and single player, like Killzone is likely to achieve.

but all in all, I agree with what you said. There are however a few things people should take into account. Mark Cerny said that only people who have an enormous amount of knowledge coding for ps3 would understand ps4's "low-level hardware" support. DICE is actually one of the few 3rd party developers who truly know how to manipulate the CELL. I believe that they can give us a PS4 experience similar to that of PCs, lacking only minor bells and whistles.

Just because a game like BF4 is running on better hardware don't mean anything. It's down to how good the developer is and how far they push things. Also every PS4 gamer will enjoy KZ: Shadow Fall exactly how it looks while not many will enjoy BF4 as it was shown because not everyone will have a super high end PC.

That's the reason I enjoy being a console gamer we all enjoy the games exactly the same so we all have the same experience even if its not the best it's still the same for us all.

Both looked great, and things are looking up if you enjoy FPS games. I certainly wish gaming communities focused a bit less on the Game A) vs. Game B) or Platform A) vs Platform B) it's boring to read and the comments are just grating.

Both Killzone SF and BF4 looked great and they will both be enjoyable romps shooting dudes. Just like games in the past from both series they will both offer competent and enjoyable multiplayer. Why is this simple idea so hard for some of you?

KZ's level was massive with loads of on-screen assets, dynamic lighting, reflections, volumetric smoke, dozens of NPCs, etc. BF4 demo on the other hand felt mostly empty it didn't really feel like a living breathing world like KZ:SF did.

Take a look at the environment in this part of BF3. - people - animals - wires - vehicles/traffic (including as light sources) - trees (that moves in the wind) - litter, chairs, ... (non gameplay related stuff) - and later other forms of vegetation http://youtu.be/U8HVQXkeU8U...

BF4 looks like BF3 as they have a common artistic target - realism in near future.

Not to much of a difference graphically between the two. Yes there are some bits here and there with the PC version that are better. I wouldn't judge map size based on one demo of KZ Shadow Fall. To run side by side its not bad at all. Many improvements will be made by time E3 erupts in June. Anything shown to the public is one month behind on what development has pushed forward too.

Sony's goal is to push their PS4 to run like it has nearly 3 Tflops of power in it. Which is why Epic's Infiltrator Demo was running on a 680 with 3 Tflops of power behind it instead of something with more juice running it. PS4 will be able to do that if all goes according to plan within 5 years.

PC games require raw power. Unless multiplatform. Then they are just ported in many cases.

Console games get specialized code lined up directly to the CPU/GPU from every game which is improved upon with every generation.

Its not hard to see why its comparable. As consoles do push forward further than their specs, but only so far. They will not breach anything above 3 Tflops side by side to a console.

My system only has a 2.2 Tflop GPU and 5 year old 4 thread quad core CPU. A PS4 launch game should match up to its PC counter part pretty well without any effort in my home.

I take back my comment towards you from a couple weeks ago... I see how you have all of your bubbles. I admit, I do agree with you most of the time, but you're comments can be pretty hit & miss sometimes.

Anyways, yeah, I personally cannot wait. Both of these games will definitely be played on the PS4 for me.

That's what I thought. If I absolutely had to compare them though, I honestly think Killzone looks graphically better, while Battlefield looks technically better. Both are going to be amazing though. Can't wait!